Talk:Piggate

Trivial Commentary

Tanbircdq David Gerard Collect - Apologies for being blunt here but this content is really, really, really stupid. I mean seriously. This goes to new depths. Wikipedia is not commentary. It's not trivia. Why, oh why do we need to include some barely notable commentary from some barely notable porn industry lawyer? We do realize the sourcing for this is "vice.com" and a commentary in the Independent. Really not stellar sourcing. Would those supporting the inclusion explain what they see as the value to the reader of keeping this kind of information?

All this said, perhaps it sorta silly to expect rationale behavior on an article about such a questionable subject...... Sigh.... NickCT (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This was better handled months ago (Collect removed it then too) - see #Legality on this page. It belongs here, it's well-sourced and it should stay.

Why the disparaging commments on Myles Jackman? He's not only RS on this matter, and a practising solicitor, but he even meets WP:N. He's pretty much the go-to guy for any legal questions in this field and pretty much the only UK lawyer who's any sort of household name for obscenity law. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What disparaging comments? I'm just saying his feelings on the topic in question aren't really all that important. Regardless, I think you need a little reality check if an "op-ed" and "vice.com" strike you as "well sourced". NickCT (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a matter of interest on the topic, and Myles Jackman is a high-quality notable opinion on the matter. There is no sensible reason to remove this - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The vice.com bit is a blog entry, and clearly such. Jackman should be identified as a solicitor (not "lawyer" as the Americanism) who specialises in "sexual liberties and obscenity law" and the quote about the drafting of the law is not on point for the pure anecdote which no one seems willing to assert is accurate at this point. Collect (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "affair"

Is an anecdote. Not an "affair." By the way, many places used "pig-headed" in reference to Ashcroft and others as well ... Oh how those pig-headed men do cling on to a grudge, Opinion: Corbyn plays pig-headed politics as shadow minister picks a beef with Britain’s farmers, etc. Might we try to at least pretend we seek to obey the strictures of WP:BLP here? Collect (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguably it's not the anecdote that the word "affair" was talking about, but the media coverage. And there's no plausible BLP issue there - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

When did Cameron and Ashcroft die? Meanwhile I would direct your kind attention to WP:WTA

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply guilt.

In short, avoiding the use of "claim" and variants is specifically called for by the Wikipedia MoS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"affair" remains more accurate than "anecdote" in context, however. We do in fact have to try not to be inaccurate. Nor does it justify your later wholesale deletions. Clearing "claim" out sounds good however - except that "claims" is what most of the media coverage calls the claims, so using "claim" in this particular matter is very well sourced - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My deletions were not "wholesale" unless you feel that following the Wikipedia MoS is not proper on Wikipedia! And I suggest you read the earlier sections on the talk page where the material was specifically, by consensus, considered to be an "anecdote" as that is the term its authors use. Collect (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent change is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Might as well make every historical fact an "anecdote" then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.155.193 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical "facts" are corroborated. This story isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this true?

just wow Barjimoa (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere between "gospel truth" and "Parson Weems" - there is no evidence evinced that the photo exists, but the fact is that the anonymous allegation exists in a book. Collect (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true, but the UK government extorts billions from UK citizens and has the resources to hush it up. Or try at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.155.193 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the alleged incident ever happened, and editors should stop editing to claim that it did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to be explicit

I think we should be explicit with exactly what Ashcroft is alleging here: That Cameron inserted his penis into the mouth of a dead pig. I understand that this topic makes people squeamish and it seems too vulgar to be talked about without lowering the wiki's dignity, but it is essential to understanding Piggate. It is the sexual taboo of both masturbation and symbolic bestiality that makes the hazing ritual a shameful thing for Cameron to have allegedly done. Using only the euphemism of "private part of his anatomy" is not adequately informative. Yes, most people would be able to grasp the implication, but some people wouldn't. There is a lot of weird ignorance out there, and an encyclopedia shouldn't confine itself to only reporting within socially acceptable expressions. Wikipedia is not censored. While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis, leading to jokes about him supposedly having a pig fetish, so citations can be derived from secondary sources. --OGoncho (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The author specifically stated it is an uncorroborated anecdote. Period. Trying to sensationalize Wikipedia into a celebrity gossip site is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. That you wish for us to imply, or even state outright, that Cameron engaged in bestiality and the like is precisely why we have WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's weird that you think I'm trying to sensationalize Wikipedia. I'm an American with no stake in British politics. I don't know what Cameron did or didn't do, and I'm fine with supposing Piggate didn't happen as reported without sufficient evidence. All I'm saying is to be honest about what Piggate is because we shouldn't censor Wikipedia to comply with social norms. As I said, "I think we should be explicit with exactly what Ashcroft is alleging here". Your inclination seems to be to defend Cameron's image as opposed to trying to be encyclopedic, and that's entirely the wrong perspective to have. Pretend it's not Cameron; it's just a celebrity you have zero feelings about one way or the other. I don't care about Justin Bieber, myself, so let's pretend TMZ is alleging Justin Bieber inserted "a private part of his anatomy" into the mouth of a dead pig. It an uncorroborated anecdote, but there are enough articles about it that it's worth having a Wikipedia page on. In describing this allegation, we should be explicit about what exactly is being alleged, going beyond the direct quote to the interpretation of the masses, in order to discuss the sexual taboo at the heart of the issue. That is the encyclopedic way to handle this issue. --OGoncho (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My position on articles falling under WP:BLP is consistent - and yes - I have edited Justin Bieber and my position on his and everyone's biography is as consistent as I can humanly be. Celebrity gossip is not of any long-term encyclopedia value. Period. Collect (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If the book - the only source for the anecdote - refers to "a private part of his anatomy" in those words, without itself being more explicit, then so should we. Everything else is supposition and interpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

+1, concur with Ghmyrtle - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another non-Brit here. I found this since I tried to make the same edit OGoncho proposed at The National Anthem (Black Mirror), and was reverted by Bilorv. I think there's room for reasonable disagreement here (I'm perhaps futily hoping this topic is less of a minefield than some other politics pages...), but I fall on the side of using direct language since there's just no other "private part of his anatomy" that it would make any sense to be referring to. Because of that, the language in the anecdote is just a language choice, not a content distinction, and while we're obligated to follow the content of sources, we are not obligated to use the same language when our own best practices guide us to another option, as I think is the case here. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that using explicit language isn't an issue here, but I have mixed feelings over whether there is a meaningful content distinction. The user who started this conversation wrote: While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis. The problem is that that isn't sufficient to say that Ashcroft claimed it was Cameron's penis. I do think there's some weight to the idea that there's no other body part that could plausibly be being described here. The way I see it there are three options: quoting only, no inference; connecting the dots but without saying that Ashcroft said it, "Ashcroft insinuated an allegation that..." (probably this can be worded better); making the inference fully, "Ashcroft alleged that Cameron put his penis ...". Which option to choose depends on how explicit we judge the quote "placed a private part of his anatomy ..." to be, and how explicit secondary sources are (after taking into account that some have strict language style guides). I'm in two minds about which I think we should choose. — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ashcroft didn't allege or claim anything. He reported an uncorroborated anecdote. Do reliable sources report that "everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis"? If they did, we can report it. If no reliable sources reported it as such, it would be original research for any editor to claim that it did - and we can't do that, especially in relation to living people. The language used is not the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims to have reported an anecdote, which is perhaps another issue with the article, which seems to take at face value that this is an anecdote reported to Ashcroft/Oakeshott rather than a possible fabrication by the pair. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Los Campesinos T-shirt

Is it really necessary to itemise all the reasons why that material should not be added to the article? (1) It's irrelevant - the T-shirt pre-dates the allegations (it does not "predict" them). (2) It's inherently trivial - a minor band print a T-shirt. So? How does it add encyclopedic content to this story? (3) They reprint the T-shirt to gain publicity. So? Not relevant. (4) It's only reported in blogs - not reliable sources. (5)... and tabloids. Also not reliable. There are no good reasons for adding even more crap like that into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Quote & pic edits

I made a couple of edits that have been reverted by David Gerard:

1. Diff. Addressing a problem with the source misquoting. Instead of using HuffPo, I swapped in the original ITV News source. I can't see a problem with that. It did have a cut down version of the quote; is losing the "too much of our media is obsessed with personality politics" that the ITV piece didn't quote a real issue? If it is, I can cite AV media on the same link and add it back in, but I didn't feel it added anything and text confirmation is always an easier cite for readers to confirm.

I also removed "appeared to criticise", as it's clear that when Corbyn says "The media treatment of any politician on unsubstantiated allegations, be it David Cameron, me or anybody else is wrong", he is criticising.

2. Diff. Non-notable pic. As far as I can see, that's merely a pic an editor has taken of some random graffiti. It may be real reporting by that editor (although using pictures of non-reported graffiti is opening a door, I'd have thought), but how is that different to OR? Bromley86 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(3. Diff. Sic. Just spotted this. We had a sic template ( [sic]), it was changed to plain-text ([sic]), so I reverted, and was then reverted myself. Not a big deal, as it'll drop out when we fix the quote, but generally I assume the sic template is preferred?) Bromley86 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I reintroduced the "sic" template, because the quote as it stands is not coherent. The person being quoted evidently did not use a grammatically correct sentence - or else perhaps there is more context outside of the quoted text which would make the quote more coherent, but as it stands it simply is not coherent! The sentence effectively reads: "The media treatment of any politician on unsubstantiated allegations is wrong." What can this possibly mean? There must be missing text. It seems like the intended meaning is: "This type of irresponsible media treatment of any politician based on unsubstantiated allegations is wrong." - Wwallacee (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems perfectly clear to me. No need for a sic here. Bromley86 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

After all that, I added back the HuffPo wording, sic, and cite. Having heard what he actually says in the ITV interview, HuffPo're the ones who are accurately quoting and he really did miss out the word "over". Bromley86 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is legality relevant?

I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care what you think - even your username makes this much obvious, let alone your repeated blanking of large sections here. But the consensus of other editors has been that it's a section worth keeping. The legal notion that the combination of two illegal acts becomes not illegal, rather than doubly illegal, is a somewhat surprising one. A surprise that RS, including broadsheet newspapers, have seen fit to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• And now you've taken this content dispute up at ANI, a year and a half later. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I still have an issue with the content included and am not sure there is a consensus for its inclusion. Also, I just haven't had the time to deal with this. Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is quite simply wrong for Reaganomics88 to suggest that the article "is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did." It doesn't suggest that at all. It reports, quite fairly and appropriately, a lawyer's published opinion on a hypothetical act. Not a problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The only reason why a legal opinion would be included in the article would be if the act is real enough for there to be the possibility of prosecution. In reality, there is no credible evidence for it and thus this is not even a remote possibility, However, the inclusion of a legal analysis suggests otherwise and is thus at best irrelevant and at worst misleading. Other editors such as User:NickCT and User:Collect have expressed similar BLP concerns: [1] & [2]. Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No. "The only reason why a legal opinion would be included in the article..." is because it's been reported in a reliable source as part of the story of this fabricated fake news incident. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?

I'm no admirer of Cameron or the Tories generally, but the allegation about the pig's head is completely unsubstantiated and was one of a number of dubious and sensationalist assertions in Isabel Oakeshott's 'biography'. In 2015 there was a narrative among Cameron's critics that he was just an effete privileged 'posh boy', and the biography was written to play to that and hence sell copies. 5 years later, Cameron is no longer even an MP, and there is still absolutely no evidence that he was ever a member of the Piers Gaveston Society while at Oxford (he was a member of the Bullingdon Club for a time, but that is a completely different grouping - Bullers generally despise PGS members as nouveau riche poseurs).

Incidentally, this story has never been known as 'Piggate' in general British political conversation. --Ef80 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)